Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The class action complaint at the heart of this case alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 based on Dick’s alleged practice of requesting personal information from consumers during credit card transactions. The litigants reached a settlement providing for class members to receive vouchers for discounts off any merchandise purchases. The initial complaint listed Plaintiff’s counsel of record as California attorney Sean Reis of the law firm of Edelson McGuire, LLP, and several out-of-state attorneys with the notation “[p]ro hac vice admittance to be sought.” The out-of-state attorneys included Joseph Siprut of Siprut PC in Chicago, Illinois. Reis signed the complaint and signed an amended complaint filed in June 2011. While accepting responsibility for monitoring the pro hac vice application, Reis was not aware the application had been denied and assumed the application had been granted. Once the proposed class action settlement had been reached, the parties set a hearing date for an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. While preparing for this hearing, Siprut and his staff reviewed the file and were unable to locate an order granting the pro hac vice application. After learning of the status of the pro hac vice application, Reis filed a new application to admit Siprut pro hac vice. The trial court issued a tentative ruling denying the second pro hac vice application. Citing rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court, the court stated that application would be denied due to the “great number of pro hac vice applications” that Joseph Siprut had made during the past year. Siprut appeared at a December 2012 hearing along with Todd Atkins, an attorney from Siprut PC, who was a member of the California State Bar. Reis did not appear. The court, affirming the tentative ruling, denied the pro hac vice application on the ground that Siprut had made 12 pro hac vice applications in the prior 11 months and there were no special circumstances under rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court which would support granting the application. Reis ultimately filed a consent to associate Atkins as counsel of record for plaintiff. Upon settlement of the class, plaintiff's counsel moved for fees. The trial court found that two of a class of 232,000 submitted claims for the merchandise credit. The court could find “absolutely no benefit really to anybody based on your claims record” and noted that most of the attorney fees sought were incurred by two out-of-state attorneys who had never been admitted pro hac vice. Final approval was granted to the settlement. In a supplemental briefing, plaintiff's counsel suggested the court grant Sirput's pro has vice application for admission nunc pro tunc to the date of first application. Counsel's application for fees was ultimately denied, and on appeal, argued the trial court erred in denying the total amount ($210,000) of fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of $11,000. The Court further affirmed the trial court's decision to reduct the amount of the plaintiff incentive award. View "Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods" on Justia Law

In 2013, hackers attacked Neiman Marcus and stole the credit card numbers of its customers. In December 2013, the company learned that some of its customers had found fraudulent charges on their cards. On January 10, 2014, it publicly announced that the cyberattack had occurred and that between July 16 and October 30, 2013, and approximately 350,000 cards had been exposed to the hackers’ malware. Customers filed suit under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The district court dismissed, ruling that the individual plaintiffs and the class lacked Article III standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs identified some particularized, concrete, redress able injuries, as a result of the data breach. View "Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC" on Justia Law

CE Design, Ltd. sued Custom Mechanical Equipment in 2008 after it received a junk fax. CE Design brought a class action suit of people and businesses that had also received unsolicited faxes from Custom. After Custom's insurer, Emcasco Insurance Company, declined to defend, Custom settled with CE Design for a considerable sum. In settling, CE Design agreed not to enforce the judgment against Custom but to proceed directly against Emcasco. After Emcasco refused to pay the judgment, CE Design and Emcasco filed rival declaratory judgment suits in separate federal courts (CE Design in Oklahoma, and Emcasco in Illinois). Ultimately, the federal district court in Illinois transferred its case to the federal district court in Oklahoma. Based on the insurance policy's terms, the district court held that Emcasco had no duty to defend Custom or to pay the judgment. CE Design appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Emcasco Insurance Co. v. CE Design" on Justia Law

This shareholder derivative suit was one of several suits alleging that Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation, a major gun manufacturer incorporated in Nevada, made misleading public statements in 2007 about demand for its products. In reaction to these cases, Smith & Wesson formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate and evaluate the viability of any of these claims and to make a recommendation to Smith & Wesson’s Board whether to pursue any of these claims. The SLC issued a final report recommending against filing any claims. In 2010, Plaintiff asserted Nevada state law claims against Smith & Wesson’s officers and directors, including breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets. On the basis of the SLC’s conclusions, Defendants, former and current officers and directors of Smith & Wesson, moved for summary dismissal under Delaware law, as adopted by Nevada. The district court granted the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding as a matter of law that the SLC was independent and that the SLC’s investigation was reasonable and conducted in good faith. View "Sarnacki v. Golden" on Justia Law

Solares filed an unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200) class action on behalf of employees who are or were employed by PSAV, which provides audio-visual services to hotels within the Century Corridor Property Business Improvement District adjoining Los Angeles International Airport. They allege that PSAV collects from customers a separately designated “service charge,” “delivery charge,” facility charge,” “gratuity,” “administrative fee,” or other such charge that “customers might reasonably believe . . . were for the class member/employees’ services.” PSAV allegedly failed to pay the separately-designated charges it collects to its employees in violation of the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance in the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the audio-visual workers’ suit. The court of appeal reversed. The ordinance applies only to those hotel workers who would have received a gratuity for their services but for the imposition of a service charge that hotel customers believed was in lieu of a gratuity. The complaint did not allege that Solares and the proposed class are within the class of hotel workers who traditionally relied on gratuities. View "Audio Visual Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a putative securities fraud class action brought by lead plaintiff Nitesh Banker on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock in Gold Resource Corporation (GRC) during the class period between January 30, 2012, and November 8, 2012. GRC, a Colorado corporation, was a publicly traded mining company engaged in Mexico in the exploration and production of precious metals, including gold and silver. GRC’s aggressive business plan called for a dramatic increase in mining production during its initial years. Plaintiff alleged the "El Aguila" project experienced severe production problems during the class period, and that defendants knew about these problems but concealed them from investors. Plaintiff alleged GRC and four of its officers and directors committed securities fraud in violation of federal securities laws. He also asserted claims against individual defendants as "control persons." The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for scienter required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Plaintiff appealed. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Gold Resource Corp." on Justia Law

In July 2012, plaintiff-respondent Ernesto Ruiz filed a putative class action complaint alleging defendant-appellant Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. failed to pay Ruiz and other employees overtime and other wages for all hours worked, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide accurate and complete wage statements, reimburse business expenses, and pay final wages in a timely manner. Moss Bros. appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of the employment-related and putative class action, representative, and Ruiz's individual claims. The trial court denied the petition on the ground Moss Bros. did not meet its burden of proving the parties had an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. No statement of decision was requested or issued, but the court implicitly found Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that an electronic signature on its proffered arbitration agreement was "the act of Ruiz." After its review, the Court of Appeal concluded Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Ruiz electronically signed the 2011 agreement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order denying the petition. View "Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto" on Justia Law

Appellants Sikora Nelson and Paul Dorsey challenged the district court’s order requiring them to post an appeal bond of $1,007,294 in order to pursue their appeals objecting to a class action settlement. Plaintiffs initiated the underlying class action suit against Defendants Western Union Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (collectively, “Western Union”), based on the fact that, at any given time, Western Union maintains between $130 and $180 million in wire transfers sent by Western Union customers that fail for some reason. These funds belong to Western Union’s customers, but Western Union returns this money (minus administrative fees) only when a customer requests a refund. Frequently, however, the customer is unaware that the wire transfer failed and thus does not know to ask Western Union to return his money. And Western Union, although possessing the customer’s contact information, does not notify the customer that his wire transfer failed, but instead holds the unclaimed money and earns interest on it. Eventually, after several years, the law of the state where the customer initiated the wire transfer requires Western Union to notify the customer that his unclaimed funds will soon escheat to the state. At that time, Western Union uses the contact information it had on record to give the customer this required notice. If the customer still fails to claim his money, those funds (minus the administrative fees) escheat to the relevant state, which then holds the funds until the customer claims them. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision to impose the appeal bond, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but reduced the amount of that bond. View "Tennille v. Western Union Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Chesapeake common stock from 2009 to 2012, and who were damaged from those purchases/acquisitions. The complaint alleged that Defendants materially misled the public through false statements and omissions regarding two different types of financial obligations: (1) Volumetric Production Payment transactions (under which Chesapeake received immediate cash in exchange for the promise to produce and deliver gas over time); and (2) the Founder Well Participation Program (under which Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon was allowed to purchase up to a 2.5% interest in the new gas wells drilled in a given year). With respect to the "VPP program," Plaintiffs alleged Defendants touted the more than $6.3 billion raised through these transactions but failed to disclose that the VPPs would require Chesapeake to incur future production costs totaling approximately $1.4 billion. Plaintiffs contended the failure to disclose these future production costs was a material omission that misled investors into believing there would be no substantial costs associated with Chesapeake’s obligations to produce and deliver gas over time. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Viewing all of the allegations in the complaint collectively, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded they gave rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Weinstein, et al v. McClendon, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a Ralston Purina Company shareholder when Ralston and Nestle Holdings, Inc. entered into a merger agreement providing that, at the time of the merger, Ralston stock would be converted and Ralson shareholders would receive payments. Plaintiff was not paid until four days after the stock was converted. Ten years later, Plaintiff filed a class action petition alleging that Nestle breached the agreement by failing to timely pay shareholders. The trial court dismissed the petition as barred by the five-year statute of limitations in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120(1), which applies to all actions upon contracts except those mentioned in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.110. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not applying the ten-year statute of limitations in section 516.110, which applies to all actions “upon any writing…for the payment of money.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the five-year statute applied in this case; and (2) Plaintiff’s argument that his petition was timely because the five-year limitations period was tolled by a pending class action against Nestle in another state was without merit.View "Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law